Is there much difference between the republican protesters being briefly detained to prevent their attempts at agitation, and the lesbians being blocked from joining the LGBT march recently? I presume the lesbians would have been detained if they'd ignored the cops and attempted to continue marching.
From what I understand the police likely behaved unlawfully in both cases.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
If Charles I had bothered to understand it a great deal of trouble would have been saved thereby!
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
Except that that blog mocks the semi-literate use of quotation marks for emphasis, when I was seeking to encourage readers to question the propagandistic use of terminology, which in your case may have been a waste of time.
They don't say they announced that a guy got a job. Capisce?
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
It is all part of God's Divine plan who becomes monarch, once they are in the throne they hold it by Divine Right
This morning, at a tube station in London, the police were questioning and writing down stuff about the chap who stands there with some handwritten signs about letting God into your life.
He is always there. Doesn’t shout. His signs are very bland. To the point you can’t tell which religion he is selling…. No negative statements about anyone or anything.
Even Richard Dawkins would have trouble finding anything to be offended by.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
If Charles I had bothered to understand it a great deal of trouble would have been saved thereby!
Being a successful military commander seems to have helped, sometimes, anyway; Henry VII for example! And who were the alternatives to JamesVI & I?
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
Interesting how little cut through the Russian collapse is having with the public at large so far. People seem really surprised when I tell them about it.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
I thought that “Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” was the traditional charge.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
Interesting - I knew Denmark (and Poland, I believe) had been an elected monarchy but it never really struck me that historical England was the same.
It was in everyone's interests to pretend it wasn't. The Crown, because otherwise it makes their position precarious (any time you don't like a King, dump them and get a new one). The ordinary people, because it's easier and means if they don't get a say, nobody else does either. And actually, the electors themselves, because it provides certainty and stability.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. And in fact there were good reasons for it. If you had a choice, would you want as your military leader a five year old boy/girl who can just about lift a toy wooden sword, or their 30 year old uncle who has already proved himself a successful war leader?
Difficulties tended to arise later on with sons and daughters who had been overlooked. So, for example, when Alfred died his nephew Aethelstan tried to seize the throne of Wessex. And when Stephen was elected King, his cousin spent sixteen years trying to throw him off the throne.
Which is also where you begin to get the royal tradition of having the losers *cough* eliminated. In Ireland this used to be done by having them blinded (as the disabled were ineligible to be kings) but in later medieval England failed monarchs tended to suffer mysterious accidents. Arthur de Bretagne vanished after John became King. Richard II allegedly starved himself to death. Henry VI 'died of pure displeasure and melancholy' that somehow caused a massive skull wound. While exactly what Richard III did to his nephews remains mysterious but it didn't involve toys and chocolate.
I think it was a bit more open in Denmark and Poland. There was genuinely a meeting of 'who shall we appoint now?' - in Denmark it genuinely was almost always the king's oldest son; in Poland I think a bit more fluid. The result announced and the decision was accepted (for a medieval value of 'accepted').
It must have caused some tensions though. Imagine if the last 60 years had seen Charles, Andrew, Anne and Edward eyeing each other warily. A happy family it cannot have made.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
Interesting - I knew Denmark (and Poland, I believe) had been an elected monarchy but it never really struck me that historical England was the same.
It was in everyone's interests to pretend it wasn't. The Crown, because otherwise it makes their position precarious (any time you don't like a King, dump them and get a new one). The ordinary people, because it's easier and means if they don't get a say, nobody else does either. And actually, the electors themselves, because it provides certainty and stability.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. And in fact there were good reasons for it. If you had a choice, would you want as your military leader a five year old boy/girl who can just about lift a toy wooden sword, or their 30 year old uncle who has already proved himself a successful war leader?
Difficulties tended to arise later on with sons and daughters who had been overlooked. So, for example, when Alfred died his nephew Aethelstan tried to seize the throne of Wessex. And when Stephen was elected King, his cousin spent sixteen years trying to throw him off the throne.
Which is also where you begin to get the royal tradition of having the losers *cough* eliminated. In Ireland this used to be done by having them blinded (as the disabled were ineligible to be kings) but in later medieval England failed monarchs tended to suffer mysterious accidents. Arthur de Bretagne vanished after John became King. Richard II allegedly starved himself to death. Henry VI 'died of pure displeasure and melancholy' that somehow caused a massive skull wound. While exactly what Richard III did to his nephews remains mysterious but it didn't involve toys and chocolate.
Life is so much simpler when you have windows and balconies.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
Except that that blog mocks the semi-literate use of quotation marks for emphasis, when I was seeking to encourage readers to question the propagandistic use of terminology, which in your case may have been a waste of time.
They don't say they announced that a guy got a job. Capisce?
Not what quotation marks are for,,except to the semi literate. Try italics.
Interesting how little cut through the Russian collapse is having with the public at large so far. People seem really surprised when I tell them about it.
I miss the old Independent. It would have concluded its royal coverage by now and be back to reporting on actual news.
This morning, at a tube station in London, the police were questioning and writing down stuff about the chap who stands there with some handwritten signs about letting God into your life.
He is always there. Doesn’t shout. His signs are very bland. To the point you can’t tell which religion he is selling…. No negative statements about anyone or anything.
Even Richard Dawkins would have trouble finding anything to be offended by.
Why is this of interest to the police?
Probably because London will be on the highest security alert until after both the funeral and the coronation and a guy who hangs around a public railway station all day is going to need to be checked out?
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Am I right in thinking Charles's wish to have the national period of mourning extend to 7 days past the funeral, was over-ruled by someone ( presumably on economic or parliament grounds ) . I haven't seen any more about that .
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
Except that that blog mocks the semi-literate use of quotation marks for emphasis, when I was seeking to encourage readers to question the propagandistic use of terminology, which in your case may have been a waste of time.
They don't say they announced that a guy got a job. Capisce?
Not what quotation marks are for,,except to the semi literate. Try italics.
You seem to be the semi-literate one here. I was quoting. Italics aren't now, and never have been in their history, used by literate people for quoting.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Because the nutter on the throne would feel upstaged if people were to say or write "the king and queen".
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
The Duke of Edinburgh was never 'King', so I suppose it just takes a bit of getting used to. It's a bit raw to say 'and the Queen' given the recency of QEII's passing.
This morning, at a tube station in London, the police were questioning and writing down stuff about the chap who stands there with some handwritten signs about letting God into your life.
He is always there. Doesn’t shout. His signs are very bland. To the point you can’t tell which religion he is selling…. No negative statements about anyone or anything.
Even Richard Dawkins would have trouble finding anything to be offended by.
Why is this of interest to the police?
Probably because London will be on the highest security alert until after both the funeral and the coronation and a guy who hangs around a public railway station all day is going to need to be checked out?
He has been there for years. He chats with the police, very politely, as they go by, all the time.
It beggars belief that they don’t know him in very considerable detail, already.
They were Met officers as well. City of London police seem to be a bit more subtle about keeping an eye on their patch.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Because the nutter on the throne would feel upstaged if people were to say or write "the king and queen".
Na, it’s not that. The palace have themselves said it is an issue for after the funeral.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
If Charles I had bothered to understand it a great deal of trouble would have been saved thereby!
Being a successful military commander seems to have helped, sometimes, anyway; Henry VII for example! And who were the alternatives to JamesVI & I?
There were about 12 of them, believe it or not. I quote from the ODNB:
'There were at least twelve people with some kind of claim. These included the Infanta Isabella...there was also Lady Arabella Stuart, James VI's first cousin and granddaughter to Elizabeth Talbot, countess of Shrewsbury, whose great building projects suggested that she was not without ambitions of her own. 'Thus you see,' wrote Thomas Wilson, 'this crown is not likely to fall to the ground for want of heads to wear it.'
By 1603, few doubted the prize would go to James, who had played his cards very carefully and whose path to the throne was smoothed by Cecil...Carey took horse within minutes of her death to convey the news to Edinburgh, and there was great surprise and relief that the succession problem of 45 years standing was resolved so easily and peacefully.'
(Elsewhere the surviving Grey family was also mentioned, notably Katherine Grey, although she wrecked her chances by marrying without Elizabeth's permission and having two sons while in prison - the older one might have succeeded but for that.)
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
I find a significant amount to disagree with in this. Other countries have honours systems, including those that are republics. The economic situation in the country is not down to the monarchy but the actions of the government. You can perhaps raise concerns about how it perpetuates inequalities in society simply by one figure being above all others, but every country has to have a head of state, and many republics don’t get the balance right either.
And I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of visiting the sins of the parents on the children. We can criticise and learn from mistakes that were made historically, but that does not mean that we have to hold the descendants of those that made them in a permanent state of disgrace.
You don't realise how balls deep Charles and James were in the Royal African Company. Not called Royal just as a mark of respect
And disgrace is not the point. We don't expect contemporary Germans to feel guilt about the holocaust but we do expect them not to lie about its existence or extent and not to celebrate it.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Because the nutter on the throne would feel upstaged if people were to say or write "the king and queen".
If that were the case, he'd have her called 'the Duchess of Edinburgh'. Charles has always wanted Camilla to be Queen. Whatever you can fault him on, it's not belittling his current spouse.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Ignoring Jane and Matilda, on the basis they were never crowned, you have Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II.
The husbands of both Marys were declared as Kings. Not however the husbands of the last three.
Interesting how little cut through the Russian collapse is having with the public at large so far. People seem really surprised when I tell them about it.
Irs been submerged by coverage of the Royal Family and the accession
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
Not interesting at all, and you have been given the right answer. If Andrew as httt had wanted 16 yo totty it would have been discreetly procured for him I would think. If nonetheless he had gone rogue and got in with Epstein he would have had the importance of keeping out of photographs drummed in to him. If not and we ended up where we are with the lawsuit he would have been able to settle it himself out of his own assets. Worse comes to worst he gets pushed out in favour of Edward.
You are aware what happened to Juan Carlos of Spain?
Juan Carlos killed his own (younger) brother. When their father asked him whether he'd done it on purpose (knowing how out of control he was), he denied it and his father basically said OK then.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
Except that that blog mocks the semi-literate use of quotation marks for emphasis, when I was seeking to encourage readers to question the propagandistic use of terminology, which in your case may have been a waste of time.
They don't say they announced that a guy got a job. Capisce?
Not what quotation marks are for,,except to the semi literate. Try italics.
You seem to be the semi-literate one here. I was quoting. Italics aren't now, and never have been in their history, used by literate people for quoting.
No you weren't, you were "seeking to encourage readers to question the propagandistic use of terminology."
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
It is all part of God's Divine plan who becomes monarch, once they are in the throne they hold it by Divine Right
You appear to have swallowed and passed it, undigested, all of an instant.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Ignoring Jane and Matilda, on the basis they were never crowned, you have Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II.
The husbands of both Marys were declared as Kings. Not however the husbands of the last three.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
I find a significant amount to disagree with in this. Other countries have honours systems, including those that are republics. The economic situation in the country is not down to the monarchy but the actions of the government. You can perhaps raise concerns about how it perpetuates inequalities in society simply by one figure being above all others, but every country has to have a head of state, and many republics don’t get the balance right either.
And I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of visiting the sins of the parents on the children. We can criticise and learn from mistakes that were made historically, but that does not mean that we have to hold the descendants of those that made them in a permanent state of disgrace.
You don't realise how balls deep Charles and James were in the Royal African Company. Not called Royal just as a mark of respect
And disgrace is not the point. We don't expect contemporary Germans to feel guilt about the holocaust but we do expect them not to lie about its existence or extent and not to celebrate it.
How many people celebrate the slave trade?
Lots, implicitly. Pride in the achievements of the Empire is the usual sort of formula.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Ignoring Jane and Matilda, on the basis they were never crowned, you have Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II.
The husbands of both Marys were declared as Kings. Not however the husbands of the last three.
Wasn't William III crowned?
Yes, because that was the deal. He would allow his wife to accept the throne on condition they made him joint King Regnant with her. That's how, in fact he remained king for eight years after her death (unlike Philip).
This was made easier by the fact that he was himself descended from Charles I so had a reasonable claim in his own right, and easier still given he had a good military record and the supporters of James II were seriously pissed off at what had happened.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
I thought that “Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” was the traditional charge.
I was once arrested by Oxford police. Someone had broken into a butcher's shop on Iffley Road.
"Couldn't have been me," I trilled "I'm a vegetarian."
"They were after the money," came the reply.
Not the for first time, Town proved smarter than Gown.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
Managers of the Royal Parks have urged mourners to stick to unwrapped flowers and refrain from placing Paddington Bear and marmalade sandwiches as memorials for the Queen.
Children all throughout the country have paid their respects by bringing sandwiches and teddy bears as a tribute to the charming cartoon that was produced for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in June.
However, Royal Parks, which oversees the memorial area in Green Park, insisted that only unwrapped flower offerings be placed in honour of Her Majesty.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
Mr. Doethur, I'd argue Mary (married to Philip of Spain) ought to count as when she died if he had really been either equal or foremost he would have simply retained the crown instead of it being inherited by Elizabeth.
Mr. Doethur, I'd argue Mary (married to Philip of Spain) ought to count as when she died if he had really been either equal or foremost he would have simply retained the crown instead of it being inherited by Elizabeth.
Am I right in thinking Charles's wish to have the national period of mourning extend to 7 days past the funeral, was over-ruled by someone ( presumably on economic or parliament grounds ) . I haven't seen any more about that .
No, you are wrong. The advice has been clear from the beginning (indeed some are going beyond it, see LibDems and the FA) that national mourning ends with the funeral. Royal Family mourning is extended by 7 days - which is considerably shorter than historical precedent.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Asked about this early doors: consensus seems to be either it’s a) a conscious decision to try and differentiate between the Queen just departed and Camilla (similar to how Queen Elizabeth became The Queen Mother) or b) a track-back to QEIIs very conscious wish that Camilla should be known as “Queen Consort”, using consort as part of the title rather than a descriptor.
Whatever, she’s Queen Camilla legally. I assume in due course that will start to creep into common parlance, partly because we’ve never constitutionally AFAIK referred to any queen as “Queen Consort” in a formal capacity before.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
SHE was naked under a see through dress. Do you want to get cancelled?
Managers of the Royal Parks have urged mourners to stick to unwrapped flowers and refrain from placing Paddington Bear and marmalade sandwiches as memorials for the Queen.
Children all throughout the country have paid their respects by bringing sandwiches and teddy bears as a tribute to the charming cartoon that was produced for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in June.
However, Royal Parks, which oversees the memorial area in Green Park, insisted that only unwrapped flower offerings be placed in honour of Her Majesty.
They are removing the flowers etc to a floral display at Green Park, each night. As the flowers die, they are being composted. So non biodegradable stuff is a nuisance, especially with the vast volumes they are dealing with.
Good, but all this about extraordinary pressure on space is a bit odd. There's approximately the same number of countries there were at the time of Churchill's and George vi's funerals.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
I thought that “Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” was the traditional charge.
I was once arrested by Oxford police. Someone had broken into a butcher's shop on Iffley Road.
"Couldn't have been me," I trilled "I'm a vegetarian."
"They were after the money," came the reply.
Not the for first time, Town proved smarter than Gown.
About the only people in Oxford that Thames Valley Police are smarter than are the comment trolls on the Oxford Mail website.
That's not because Oxford is full of clever people, it's because TVP is an an absolute shower of a police force.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
A shame that the Obamas cannot come. They seem to have had a genuine friendship with HMQ, which endured beyond the common courtesies between Heads of State.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
From an article on the protest:
"The activist, speaking to VICE on the condition of anonymity, described the dramatic action as “an extreme version of the public embarrassment that trans people experience on a daily basis, using the toilet that either doesn't fit with their gender or using the one that does, and then facing the backlash of people's judgement”."
Good, but all this about extraordinary pressure on space is a bit odd. There's approximately the same number of countries there were at the time of Churchill's and George vi's funerals.
If they invited all the heads of state and former PMs who the Queen had known during her reign, they would be into the thousands..
Some on here may recall a few days ago (was it only a few days? seems longer) I was whittling about my daughter's 11+ being usurped by the queen's funeral. Happy to report that the test has been postponed from the 19th of September to the 20th. I think we can deal with an extra day. My expectations of the flexibility of the public sector* have been greatly exceeded.
*is it the public sector, technically? All the schools involved are academies, I think, so it's not a council decision. A minor technicality.
Some on here may recall a few days ago (was it only a few days? seems longer) I was whittling about my daughter's 11+ being usurped by the queen's funeral. Happy to report that the test has been postponed from the 19th of September to the 20th. I think we can deal with an extra day. My expectations of the flexibility of the public sector* have been greatly exceeded.
*is it the public sector, technically? All the schools involved are academies, I think, so it's not a council decision. A minor technicality.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
He is trying to tell you about Swedish politics is surreal
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Fear (misplaced by the look of it) of a Diana backlash. Same reason as we have pretended she has not been Princess of Wales for 20 years
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
I agree - perhaps once the late Queen’s funeral is over we’ll drop the “consort” bit and just use her correct title “the Queen” or “Queen Camilla”. We don’t call the King “King Regnant”. Yesterday the late Queen’s funeral cortège was frequently referred to as containing “the queen’s coffin”. No it didn’t! The Queen is alive and well.
Am I right in thinking Charles's wish to have the national period of mourning extend to 7 days past the funeral, was over-ruled by someone ( presumably on economic or parliament grounds ) . I haven't seen any more about that .
Don't think so. Think that was a confusion between national mourning and court mourning.
Mike is absolutely correct: events have destroyed any chance Liz had. The plan would have been to explode onto the scene with a plethora of controversial libertarian proposals, causing mayhem and seizing the media narrative. That ship has now sailed. By the time Liz gets any room for manoeuvre public weariness will already have set in and everyone will be thinking about the next installment. It's over I'm afraid.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
SHE was naked under a see through dress. Do you want to get cancelled?
I am not going to be bullied into telling a lie. If a man can be free to say that he is a woman, then I am equally free to say that he isn't.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
From an article on the protest:
"The activist, speaking to VICE on the condition of anonymity, described the dramatic action as “an extreme version of the public embarrassment that trans people experience on a daily basis, using the toilet that either doesn't fit with their gender or using the one that does, and then facing the backlash of people's judgement”."
Bollocks. Frankly. This is extreme narcissism on stilts. No consideration whatsoever about whether women want to share toilets with men pissing all over the place or men getting aroused while wearing women's clothes.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
Look, I know it is hard for you to take that the eternally social democrat liberal nation you thought you moved to and now live in has a hard right nationalist holding the balance of power in its parliament, hence your tantrum this morning.
However the numbers don't lie, without Sweden Democrats support Kristersson will not become PM as the Social Democrats still have most seats even if well short of a majority. So if Akesson demands some ministerial posts to make Kristersson PM, Kristersson will have to agree
US to ramp up restrictions on semiconductor exports to China: report https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3638346-us-to-ramp-up-restrictions-on-semiconductor-exports-to-china-report/ The Biden administration next month will place new restrictions on U.S. shipments of semiconductor chips and chipmaking equipment to China, according to Reuters. The Commerce Department will formalize new rules prohibiting the shipment of chipmaking equipment to Chinese factories that produce advanced* semiconductors, Reuters reported, citing people familiar with the matter. U.S. companies seeking to export the equipment must obtain a Commerce Department license. Three U.S. companies — KLA Corp., Lam Research Corp., and Applied Materials Inc. — already operate under the restrictions as directed by the Commerce Department. The Hill has reached out to the Commerce Department for comment....
* The report says below 14nm, which is not very advanced at all. Depending on the announced details, this could be very hard hitting indeed.
Mike is absolutely correct: events have destroyed any chance Liz had. The plan would have been to explode onto the scene with a plethora of controversial libertarian proposals, causing mayhem and seizing the media narrative. That ship has now sailed. By the time Liz gets any room for manoeuvre public weariness will already have set in and everyone will be thinking about the next installment. It's over I'm afraid.
It is too early to tell. Feels to me as if she doesn't actually start the new job till next Tuesday.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed: it is notable how well Norway next door handles illegal (and legal) immigration, while Sweden has made a pigs ear of both.
With that said... There's a tonal thing here. "The repatriation express, next stop Kabul" sounds rather like trolling. I suspect it cannot help but increase division, and make those people who came to Sweden legally feel unwanted.
I think this is correct, but they should still be able say it, that is the whole thing about democracy. We shouldn't get to the point where 'offensive discourse' is made unlawful or impossible. This is my main objection to the liberal left, in general; they have gone way too far down this rabbit hole.
If you go and look at reports on Sweden Democrats, they always find a proportion of immigrants who support them. The law abiding immigrants themselves get fed up with other immigrants giving them a bad name and end up voting for these right wing parties.
@StuartDickson says that the establishment parties are going to sort it all out, but it does seem to be quite late in the day to be saying this.
The situation in Sweden with immigration and integration just feels the UK 25 or so years ago. Hopefully they will do a better job at sorting it out than we did.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything?...
That sounds like a protest very much designed to provoke an arrest.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
He is trying to tell you about Swedish politics is surreal
What worries me is, if a party is of the "right" they are good eggs in HY's book. He would have been thrilled by Hitler's election in 1932 without thinking through the consequences.
Speaker Hoyle just mentioned the Glorious Revolution to King Charles and the Queen Consort in Westminster Hall, setting out the basis of our constitutional system
Why do we keep talking about the "Queen Consort "? I think pretty well all our Queens have been consorts! I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
I agree - perhaps once the late Queen’s funeral is over we’ll drop the “consort” bit and just use her correct title “the Queen” or “Queen Camilla”. We don’t call the King “King Regnant”. Yesterday the late Queen’s funeral cortège was frequently referred to as containing “the queen’s coffin”. No it didn’t! The Queen is alive and well.
‘Consort’ will start to disappear the first time someone hits a Twitter character limit.
Some on here may recall a few days ago (was it only a few days? seems longer) I was whittling about my daughter's 11+ being usurped by the queen's funeral. Happy to report that the test has been postponed from the 19th of September to the 20th. I think we can deal with an extra day. My expectations of the flexibility of the public sector* have been greatly exceeded.
*is it the public sector, technically? All the schools involved are academies, I think, so it's not a council decision. A minor technicality.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
I thought that “Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” was the traditional charge.
I was once arrested by Oxford police. Someone had broken into a butcher's shop on Iffley Road.
"Couldn't have been me," I trilled "I'm a vegetarian."
"They were after the money," came the reply.
Not the for first time, Town proved smarter than Gown.
About the only people in Oxford that Thames Valley Police are smarter than are the comment trolls on the Oxford Mail website.
That's not because Oxford is full of clever people, it's because TVP is an an absolute shower of a police force.
To be fair they have a horrifically high murder rate to deal with, about one a week and usually a Don going in extremely mysterious circumstances. Plus they have presumably been struggling since their star detective Morse went to the great pub in the sky. Cut them some slack!
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
He is trying to tell you about Swedish politics is surreal
What worries me is, if a party is of the "right" they are good eggs in HY's book. He would have been thrilled by Hitler's election in 1932 without thinking through the consequences.
That really is the dividing line between @HYUFD and me and maybe explains why we have so many differences
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
SHE was naked under a see through dress. Do you want to get cancelled?
I am not going to be bullied into telling a lie. If a man can be free to say that he is a woman, then I am equally free to say that he isn't.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
From an article on the protest:
"The activist, speaking to VICE on the condition of anonymity, described the dramatic action as “an extreme version of the public embarrassment that trans people experience on a daily basis, using the toilet that either doesn't fit with their gender or using the one that does, and then facing the backlash of people's judgement”."
Bollocks. Frankly. This is extreme narcissism on stilts. No consideration whatsoever about whether women want to share toilets with men pissing all over the place or men getting aroused while wearing women's clothes.
Is it illegal to use the "wrong" toilets? I mean, if I use a cubicle in women's loo have I broken the law?
I think not. In which case the trans person can use whichever toilet they want can't they?
Personally, I don't care (who looks at other people in these places anyway?) but I understand that some people do. Can't see it's a big issue to be honest.
@Cyclefree "I am not going to be bullied into telling a lie. If a man can be free to say that he is a woman, then I am equally free to say that he isn't."
Mike is absolutely correct: events have destroyed any chance Liz had. The plan would have been to explode onto the scene with a plethora of controversial libertarian proposals, causing mayhem and seizing the media narrative. That ship has now sailed. By the time Liz gets any room for manoeuvre public weariness will already have set in and everyone will be thinking about the next installment. It's over I'm afraid.
It is far from over and labour are about to find out they have competition for 2024
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Surely they could have just done him for 'stepping on the cracks in the pavement'.
I thought that “Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area” was the traditional charge.
I was once arrested by Oxford police. Someone had broken into a butcher's shop on Iffley Road.
"Couldn't have been me," I trilled "I'm a vegetarian."
"They were after the money," came the reply.
Not the for first time, Town proved smarter than Gown.
About the only people in Oxford that Thames Valley Police are smarter than are the comment trolls on the Oxford Mail website.
That's not because Oxford is full of clever people, it's because TVP is an an absolute shower of a police force.
To be fair they have a horrifically high murder rate to deal with, about one a week and usually a Don going in extremely mysterious circumstances. Plus they have presumably been struggling since their star detective Morse went to the great pub in the sky. Cut them some slack!
IIRC one episode of Morse had more murders than Oxford police had seen in about 20 years.
When I was young, Oxford had an infestation of police who had been transferred and demoted as a result of the West Midlands Serious Crimes* Squad thing.
* “Afore God, this squad was well named”** ** for extra points - what is the name of the character I am ripping off, here?
No, he very much swung the other way, as even @HYUFD will have to concede following the pronouncement on the issue expected shortly from the Defender of the Faith
Some on here may recall a few days ago (was it only a few days? seems longer) I was whittling about my daughter's 11+ being usurped by the queen's funeral. Happy to report that the test has been postponed from the 19th of September to the 20th. I think we can deal with an extra day. My expectations of the flexibility of the public sector* have been greatly exceeded.
*is it the public sector, technically? All the schools involved are academies, I think, so it's not a council decision. A minor technicality.
As they are (probably) fully government funded, they are effectively QUANGOs, I suppose ?
Mike is absolutely correct: events have destroyed any chance Liz had. The plan would have been to explode onto the scene with a plethora of controversial libertarian proposals, causing mayhem and seizing the media narrative. That ship has now sailed. By the time Liz gets any room for manoeuvre public weariness will already have set in and everyone will be thinking about the next installment. It's over I'm afraid.
It is far from over and labour are about to find out they have competition for 2024
They may still win but it is not as likely now
Liz is a dud. You know that. That's why you supported Rishi.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
SHE was naked under a see through dress. Do you want to get cancelled?
HER penis.
Too many organisations have had their views on the law mis-directed by Stonewall and their misrepresentation of The Equality Act.
I see that Starmer means either "old stone", comes from Stanmere in Sussex, or, most interestingly ..
"The name Starmer comes from a name for a person whose personality or appearance called to mind a star. Starmer is a nickname, which belongs to the category of hereditary surnames. The surname Starmer comes from the Old English words sterre, or starre, which mean star, and would have been given to someone with a bright personality. This word was also used to refer to a white patch of hair on the forehead of a horse, an so, it may have been transferred to refer to someone with a streak of white hair."
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
Without Sweden Democrats support now the Moderates will not get into power and as the second largest party the Sweden Democrats could certainly demand some government posts for their support.
SD being in government and having ministerial posts is a total impossibility. But then, if you had any knowledge whatsoever about Swedish current affairs, you’d know that.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
No it isn't now. The SDs will be the largest party supporting the new government and even the BBC has pointed out Akesson now wants to be part of the new government, if not he could collapse it.
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
He is trying to tell you about Swedish politics is surreal
What worries me is, if a party is of the "right" they are good eggs in HY's book. He would have been thrilled by Hitler's election in 1932 without thinking through the consequences.
No, if I was Swedish I would vote Moderate not Sweden Democrat, I didn't even vote for Farage in the European elections.
However the reality of the numbers after Sweden's election is clear, the Sweden Democrats hold the balance of power
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
I think the problem with public order/harrassment legislation is that it, were it to be applied fairly by the police (ie in every possible instance of harrassment or disorder) then they would be making millions of arrests every day. It always struck me as something that they have in their back pocket to be used occasionally as a sort of last resort when managing public affairs. But in recent years they are using it more proactively in the service of particular 'priorities'.
Every so often I check the financial news, and my preferred site for doing so is Yahoo finance, for the sole reason that I always have done and it's laid out how I expect. It does, however, have a natty line in trying to make spurious connections - 'financial news x, as news event y'. There is a classic of the genre there today: "FTSE 100 rises as Queen Elizabeth II's coffin to lie in state in Edinburgh"
(US) Deflation in the pipeline, heading for the PPI, CPI, PCE Deflator: from post-COVID price peaks, lumber -60%, copper -35%, oil -35%, iron ore -60%, DRAM -46%, corn -17%, Baltic freight rates -79%, gold -17%, and silver -39%. https://twitter.com/CathieDWood/status/1569182368954724352
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
SHE was naked under a see through dress. Do you want to get cancelled?
I am not going to be bullied into telling a lie. If a man can be free to say that he is a woman, then I am equally free to say that he isn't.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
"...A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: “A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford.
“He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
Last week in London a man from some group called Pissed Off Trannies brought 60 bottles of urine to the pavement outside the offices of the ECHR in Westminster, poured some of it over the front door of the offices and over himself. He was naked under a see through dress and in some photos visibly aroused. The police arrived. He has not, AFAIK, been arrested even though his identity is known.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure 2. Public Order Act 1986. 3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 4. Possibly criminal damage 5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
From an article on the protest:
"The activist, speaking to VICE on the condition of anonymity, described the dramatic action as “an extreme version of the public embarrassment that trans people experience on a daily basis, using the toilet that either doesn't fit with their gender or using the one that does, and then facing the backlash of people's judgement”."
Bollocks. Frankly. This is extreme narcissism on stilts. No consideration whatsoever about whether women want to share toilets with men pissing all over the place or men getting aroused while wearing women's clothes.
Is it illegal to use the "wrong" toilets? I mean, if I use a cubicle in women's loo have I broken the law?
I think not. In which case the trans person can use whichever toilet they want can't they?
Personally, I don't care (who looks at other people in these places anyway?) but I understand that some people do. Can't see it's a big issue to be honest.
Several religions (Judaism, Islam, to mention but two) have severe strictures on women being in the presence of men. But their rights are to be ignored because of a few people’s feelings. See the Hampstead Ponds.
Comments
They don't say they announced that a guy got a job. Capisce?
This morning, at a tube station in London, the police were questioning and writing down stuff about the chap who stands there with some handwritten signs about letting God into your life.
He is always there. Doesn’t shout. His signs are very bland. To the point you can’t tell which religion he is selling…. No negative statements about anyone or anything.
Even Richard Dawkins would have trouble finding anything to be offended by.
Why is this of interest to the police?
It must have caused some tensions though. Imagine if the last 60 years had seen Charles, Andrew, Anne and Edward eyeing each other warily. A happy family it cannot have made.
I know the last one was Queen by right but she was only one of five since the Conquest I think.
Otherwise, William's wife (whose name I forget), Anne, Mary, Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II, right?
It beggars belief that they don’t know him in very considerable detail, already.
They were Met officers as well. City of London police seem to be a bit more subtle about keeping an eye on their patch.
'There were at least twelve people with some kind of claim. These included the Infanta Isabella...there was also Lady Arabella Stuart, James VI's first cousin and granddaughter to Elizabeth Talbot, countess of Shrewsbury, whose great building projects suggested that she was not without ambitions of her own. 'Thus you see,' wrote Thomas Wilson, 'this crown is not likely to fall to the ground for want of heads to wear it.'
By 1603, few doubted the prize would go to James, who had played his cards very carefully and whose path to the throne was smoothed by Cecil...Carey took horse within minutes of her death to convey the news to Edinburgh, and there was great surprise and relief that the succession problem of 45 years standing was resolved so easily and peacefully.'
(Elsewhere the surviving Grey family was also mentioned, notably Katherine Grey, although she wrecked her chances by marrying without Elizabeth's permission and having two sons while in prison - the older one might have succeeded but for that.)
The husbands of both Marys were declared as Kings. Not however the husbands of the last three.
JC also shagged Princess Diana, or so I am told.
You are, as always, an utter nincompoop.
So President Biden and the First Lady will go but no previous US Presidents
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11203353/Donald-Trump-NOT-receive-invite-Queens-funeral-spaces-ceremony-limited.html
This was made easier by the fact that he was himself descended from Charles I so had a reasonable claim in his own right, and easier still given he had a good military record and the supporters of James II were seriously pissed off at what had happened.
"Couldn't have been me," I trilled "I'm a vegetarian."
"They were after the money," came the reply.
Not the for first time, Town proved smarter than Gown.
There are at least 5 possible offences for which he could be arrested.
1. Indecent exposure
2. Public Order Act 1986.
3. Littering under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
4. Possibly criminal damage
5. Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance contrary to S. 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
Why aren't the police doing anything? Why have the police not arrested men holding up banners saying "Kill Terfs!" Or the violent mob attacking women at a Womens Rights March in Bristol? And so on.
There is a fine line between free speech and public disorder. But the police seem not to know what it is, nor what the law says and they fail to apply the law consistently or lawfully. It brings them into disrepute and risk people feeling that they will only have the protection of the law and the police if they behave in ways in which the police approve or belong to approved / favoured groups. That is not how things should be in a free democratic society under the rule of law.
Children all throughout the country have paid their respects by bringing sandwiches and teddy bears as a tribute to the charming cartoon that was produced for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in June.
However, Royal Parks, which oversees the memorial area in Green Park, insisted that only unwrapped flower offerings be placed in honour of Her Majesty.
https://tdpelmedia.com/royal-parks-need-flowers-not-paddington-bear-or-marmalade-sandwiches
Akesson is now the Kingmaker whether you like it or not
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62872545
Had Obama wholeheartedly backed his VP to run as his successor, history might have been very different.
‘You Believe This S--t?’ Biden’s Complicated Friendship With Obama
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/12/biden-obama-complicated-friendship-00056044
Whatever, she’s Queen Camilla legally. I assume in due course that will start to creep into common parlance, partly because we’ve never constitutionally AFAIK referred to any queen as “Queen Consort” in a formal capacity before.
They are removing the flowers etc to a floral display at Green Park, each night. As the flowers die, they are being composted. So non biodegradable stuff is a nuisance, especially with the vast volumes they are dealing with.
That's not because Oxford is full of clever people, it's because TVP is an an absolute shower of a police force.
I cannot be bothered spelling it out to you, because you *always* simply ignore when other posters correct you. You just keep on posting the same nonsense.
"The activist, speaking to VICE on the condition of anonymity, described the dramatic action as “an extreme version of the public embarrassment that trans people experience on a daily basis, using the toilet that either doesn't fit with their gender or using the one that does, and then facing the backlash of people's judgement”."
Happy to report that the test has been postponed from the 19th of September to the 20th. I think we can deal with an extra day.
My expectations of the flexibility of the public sector* have been greatly exceeded.
*is it the public sector, technically? All the schools involved are academies, I think, so it's not a council decision. A minor technicality.
However the numbers don't lie, without Sweden Democrats support Kristersson will not become PM as the Social Democrats still have most seats even if well short of a majority. So if Akesson demands some ministerial posts to make Kristersson PM, Kristersson will have to agree
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3638346-us-to-ramp-up-restrictions-on-semiconductor-exports-to-china-report/
The Biden administration next month will place new restrictions on U.S. shipments of semiconductor chips and chipmaking equipment to China, according to Reuters.
The Commerce Department will formalize new rules prohibiting the shipment of chipmaking equipment to Chinese factories that produce advanced* semiconductors, Reuters reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
U.S. companies seeking to export the equipment must obtain a Commerce Department license.
Three U.S. companies — KLA Corp., Lam Research Corp., and Applied Materials Inc. — already operate under the restrictions as directed by the Commerce Department.
The Hill has reached out to the Commerce Department for comment....
* The report says below 14nm, which is not very advanced at all. Depending on the announced details, this could be very hard hitting indeed.
If you go and look at reports on Sweden Democrats, they always find a proportion of immigrants who support them. The law abiding immigrants themselves get fed up with other immigrants giving them a bad name and end up voting for these right wing parties.
@StuartDickson says that the establishment parties are going to sort it all out, but it does seem to be quite late in the day to be saying this.
The situation in Sweden with immigration and integration just feels the UK 25 or so years ago. Hopefully they will do a better job at sorting it out than we did.
I think not. In which case the trans person can use whichever toilet they want can't they?
Personally, I don't care (who looks at other people in these places anyway?) but I understand that some people do. Can't see it's a big issue to be honest.
Ooh I like that. May have to steal it.
They may still win but it is not as likely now
When I was young, Oxford had an infestation of police who had been transferred and demoted as a result of the West Midlands Serious Crimes* Squad thing.
* “Afore God, this squad was well named”**
** for extra points - what is the name of the character I am ripping off, here?
https://nitter.net/ChrisO_wiki/status/1569087890466144261
(Nitter link instead of Twitter so that those without an account can read it)
An explanation of why the Russians are collapsing, and an attempt to push the term 'Blyatskrieg'...
All the best for a successful outcome.
Too many organisations have had their views on the law mis-directed by Stonewall and their misrepresentation of The Equality Act.
"The name Starmer comes from a name for a person whose personality or appearance called to mind a star. Starmer is a nickname, which belongs to the category of hereditary surnames. The surname Starmer comes from the Old English words sterre, or starre, which mean star, and would have been given to someone with a bright personality. This word was also used to refer to a white patch of hair on the forehead of a horse, an so, it may have been transferred to refer to someone with a streak of white hair."
However the reality of the numbers after Sweden's election is clear, the Sweden Democrats hold the balance of power
https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1568614745284005892
Albeit Hick had a much better overall first class record.
"FTSE 100 rises as Queen Elizabeth II's coffin to lie in state in Edinburgh"
https://twitter.com/CathieDWood/status/1569182368954724352
https://www.luxaviationuk.com/our-fleet/embraer-legacy-600650/g-legc